Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Terrible prosecutioning. Surely that is attempted murder.
it knew that it was virtually certain that his actions would cause death. YEAH EASY.
deserves much longer.
hmmm, think i'll go back the other way.
And not very safe for cycling in a lot of places
Alexander McQueen's only just died.
It's mental that he only got charged with dangerous driving and causing grievous bodily harm.
(cyclist was being a bit of a dick though)
but not being a dick in deserving to be run over by a bus way...
they have to be loads more of a dick for that. Loads more.
Is he wearing a helmet? I hope he was. I hope you all are.
the size of houses.
Doesn't justify what the bus driver did, but he's hardly a great poster child for a cycle safety campaign.
if he got hit accidentally by the bus, everyone would be, meh, he was being a dick. However, the bus driver purposefully ran him over, which is a properly shit thing to do. And yes, he is not a poster boy for cycle safety, but didnt ask to be...
so you can give the driver an earful, and then slowly cycling away directly in front of it isn't a brilliant idea.
that was a pretty sweet manouveur.
Not condoning it, just saying...
Controlled the bus well. Which makes it a million times worse cos it shows he knew exactly what he was doing. Wouldn't be surprised if he'd done it before tbh.
but that's shocking. He should count himself lucky that he hasn't received a longer sentence.
you have the CCTV footage to prove this one, it's not dangerous driving... fuck this country
Literally in front of the doors.
Good one drive!
he knocked over a guy over with a BUS. it's not your average GBH.
which carries maximum five years
it was blatantly intentional and could easily have ended in death/paralysis/serious injury
but the judge's hands are tied by the law. If it had resulted in "death" it'd be death by dangerous driving (max 14 years). Technically, he did cause "serious injury" cause that's what GBH is. Obviously they didn't think he intended to cause serious harm but only foresaw some harm (even though he was, as I think everyone in this thread sees it, at least very reckless as to the possibility of serious harm).
the points being
a) he intended to hit the cyclist hard hith a bus
b) it killed him
c) from that video, if the guy had been killed by going under the wheels we wouldnt have been suprised
= murder, to be guilty of murder you can be intent on causing serious harm and do actions that are likley to do serious harm or death and if this results in death it is murder
we might think that hitting someone with a bus is likely to cause serious harm, so the extent of the intent might be irrelevant, but as zxcvbnm says up there ^ it does look like hes trying to swat the guy off the bike.
I guess that there should be something inbetween murder and manslaughter in this country (even if the length of sentences might cover all eventualities between em) to try to distinguish.
So if the bus driver had killed the cyclist that would be 2nd degree murder (it shouldnt really be death by dangerous driving because there was actually malice involved, not carelessness or recklessness on their own)
Maybe the student who threw the fire extinguisher off the roof.....if that had killed someone then i reckon that would be more extreme than manslaughter, because there is a vague bit of malice there (towards a distant crowd)
perhaps the policeman who killed the poor newspaper seller would also get this between charge, cos what he did was illegal and violent and with malice yet obviously there was no intent to kill, although it was entirely unprovoked and on a total innocent and the guy was walking away with his back turned, so this makes it kind of worse than manslaughter
if he had, then he would have been guilty of section 18 gbh: gbh with intent (which can carry a life sentence). But they didn't find this for whatever reason.
Your explanation of why they didn't try him on attempted murder makes a lot of sense but surely they could have demonstrated that someone who ploughs into a cyclist with a bus intends serious harm?
Would it be the case that they could have only charged him with one of the two and had to go for the one most likely to commit or could they have charged him with both if they thought there was sufficient evidence? I assumed the latter but perhaps I'm wrong.
there are a few other stories I remember like this on... e.g.someone reversing a range rover into a cyclist with a child in a trailer...
there really has to be a specific offence for this with an appropriately heavy sentence.
I ruled this out because:
-mens rea for murder is intention to kill or cause gbh
-they didn't find either in this case
iirc without actual intent to kill of inflict gbh, only where death is virtually certain to have resulted, and that the defendant realised this, can the jury be directed to find intention.
I suppose it hinged on the bus driver somehow saying that he did not intend to commit gbh (although people might say if you hit a cyclist deliberately and violently (cos it didnt look like a violent blow) then surely this MUST mean intent to cause gbh)
I imagine the bus driver was let off that because he might argue that he was seeing the vehicles as 'objects' one of which was annoying him and he lost his temper and lashed out at the object of his annoyance.
I can understand that if this is the view then he could get let off the more serious charge of gbh with intent.
I guess the other thing the bus driver could plea, would be that he did not just run him down from behind, that he actually took action to avoid hurting the bike rider too much, whilst attempting to hurt him a bit.
I do think they could add 'battery' and 'ABH' to his charges (and if the cyclist saw it coming and feared for his life then they could add 'assault'
as you were, DD is right
also hilarious (cos hes not dead)
'librul judges give too short sentences' line in the papers tomorrow.
Whats he whining about?! MTFU cyclists
that gif where the dog and the goat are eating from the same tub, and the goat proceeds to bowl over the dog.